REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MICHELLE H. BURNS, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner Buford Scott Danford has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Court screened the habeas petition on March 26, 2015, and ordered Respondents to answer (Doc. 8). Further, in the screening Order, Petitioner was directed to file and serve a notice of change of address in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner was warned that if he failed to timely comply with the provisions set forth in the screening Order, the action would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On June 16, 2015, the docket reflected that mail was returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 20.) Having failed to notify the Court of a new address, the Court ordered that on or before June 29, 2015, Petitioner shall either (1) file a notice of change of address; or (2) show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute in light of his failure to file a notice of change of address as previously ordered by the Court.1 (Doc. 21.)

To date, Petitioner has not responded to the Court's Order or otherwise communicated with the Court. Accordingly, it appearing that Petitioner has abandoned his claims, the Court will recommend that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:

That Respondents' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19) be DENIED as moot;

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute;

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Pursuant to Rule 7.2, Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, objections to the Report and Recommendation may not exceed seventeen (17) pages in length. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.